From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>> On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>> On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without   
   >>>>>>>>>>> much regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that   
   >>>>>>>>>>> the ovum has various bits that must be in place in order to   
   >>>>>>>>>>> get the process of development going, and that there are many   
   >>>>>>>>>>> interactions between cells that are not directly controlled   
   >>>>>>>>>>> by the genome. But the source of the bits that interact is   
   >>>>>>>>>>> still the genome, at first the maternal genome and later the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> zygote's.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene   
   >>>>>>>> coding. However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate   
   >>>>>>>> that the cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do   
   >>>>>>>> (so to speak):   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> "It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced   
   >>>>>>>> experimentally into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very   
   >>>>>>>> quickly assume, in nearly every respect, the nuclear activity   
   >>>>>>>> characteristic of the host cell. In many instances, altered   
   >>>>>>>> function has been demonstrated in nuclei which subsequently   
   >>>>>>>> support normal development." [1]   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are   
   >>>>>>> in the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the   
   >>>>>>> previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in   
   >>>>>>> differences in expression.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is   
   >>>>>>>> bi- directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we   
   >>>>>>>> must conclude that information is initially present in both the   
   >>>>>>>> nucleus and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue   
   >>>>>>>> form respectively.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But   
   >>>>>>> yes, proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But   
   >>>>>>> that information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of   
   >>>>>>> DNA.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> A digital information medium stores heritable information in   
   >>>>>> discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-   
   >>>>>> based molecular machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base   
   >>>>>> pairs can be simply mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital   
   >>>>>> information. Are we agreed that DNA can be accurately described as   
   >>>>>> *digital* information? (Along with its chemical and structural/   
   >>>>>> physical properties and interactions.)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an analogy.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a   
   >>>> definition and identification of actual digital information, and   
   >>>> large amount of it at that.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an alien   
   >>>> lifeform and see 0s and 1s pour out?   
   >>   
   >> I'm interested to hear your response to this.   
   >   
   > I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be an analogy?   
   > Computer memory. I suppose that a written sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts   
   > would also be digital information.   
      
   To recap:   
      
   You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context."   
      
   I challenged that dismissive remark with "On what basis do you deem   
   these 'empty buzzwords'? A digital information medium stores heritable   
   information in discrete symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded   
   by rule-based molecular machinery...Are we agreed that DNA can be   
   accurately described as *digital* information?" To which you responded:   
      
   "That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an analogy."   
      
   We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged again with:   
   "No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a definition   
   and identification of actual digital information, and large amount of it   
   at that."   
      
   You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a written   
   sequence of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information."   
      
   Which is revealing. Why did I need to drag this out of you? My   
   impression is you're more than able to understand these concepts without   
   me needing to laboriously explain them. Therefore, it seems you are   
   being disingenuous or deliberately obstructionist in your responses.   
      
   If it takes this much pulling you by the ear to concede something as   
   straightforward and non-contentious as this, what hope is there of a   
   meaningful, open-minded conversation?   
      
   But then, perhaps that's the point.   
      
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)